If its like my 512Mb machine, it'll run utterly smoothly for about 15 seconds, then stutter as the next thing needs to be loaded from swap, before giving another 15 seconds of smoothness. The rest of that machine should handle FarCry really well; in fact even my GeForce 4200 can cope at low res, its just that 512Mb isn't enough for this game - people see the exact same behaviour with x800s and 512Mb, even.
-
-
Same for me (Radeon 9800 Pro) with 512MBOriginally posted by mid
I added 256MB (768 Total) and it was smooth as silk, which is why I orginally advised that he consider more than 512MB of RAM.... Far Cry is a memory HOG! Having a silly sized page file can help I am told.
Perhaps HL2 and Doom3 will have better memory control, and it will be OK for folk with 512MB. Time will tell, and assuming a free DIMM slot, it's no biggie to upgrade.
Cheers
/C_SComment
-
Actually that's not quite true. Some motherboards, even though they might have 3 DIMM slots, will only accept 1 or 2 DIMMs depending on the type (DDR3200/DDR2700 etc), so you should check your motherboard manual and current RAM config first.
Regards
MartyComment
-
Well, Carmack said the 512 to 1gig difference is nominal, so 512 users will presumably be fine.
If you're gonna run 512 though, I'd be sensible about the swap file (like making it static and at the beginning of the primary on a second hdd).Comment
-
Last time I looked at an AMD chip the number of compatability issues was huge and I gave up.
Neil.Comment
-
I like to give the swap file its own partition, to help ease fragmentation.Comment
-
Really Neil? I'm not aware on any at all on the current range of chips, or indeed for years. But then, I'm not responsible for building servers like the one we're all using right now.Comment
-
List them.Comment
-
I couldn't get the AMD chip to fit my intel motherboard. ;-)
Neil.Comment
-
;p
........Comment
-
Actually I did have a number of issues but they were more related to the chipset than the processor, since then I've played safe and gone with intel and not had any issues really.
Neil.Last edited by NeilMcRae; 23-07-2004, 10:17.Comment
-
Aye fair play, lot of folk have guff with Via et al. Can't say any issues ever affected me (abit, kt400 based), but they've done enough to annoy folk such that they avoid Via entirely.
nm, nforce2 based now ;pComment
-
Does anyone know what support is like for TVs\widescreen formats with current gfx cards, in particular the NVidia 6800 and ATi X800? and are there any useful applications that people know of that make using dual monitor\TV\widescreen with PCs easier.
Well, I don't have a 6800 or x800, but some age-infested gf4 instead. However, it does support 1280x720, amongst other things. I very much expect it to be the same for a 6800, too.
Nividia's dual-screen software, that I also use, is quite spiffy really...it adds buttons to the app's title bar for "enlarge to this monitor", etc., right clicks to do the same thing, send apps to other monitors, hotkeys, la la la, things to control where an app's menus pop up, all the things you could want. It lets you use it as one big desktop (so a game would play on one screen), two 'separate but linked ones' (so a game would play on one but the other would be blank --- or you pick a dual-screen res and get quite a wide game)...lets you use the screens vertically too....which is somewhat useless probably.
The main benefit you'd get from a monitor, maybe, is high refresh rates for games - a current-gen card is going to do alot of fps at 1280x720, probably far more than an LCD TV can show.Comment
-
so long as you know the resolution you require you can force pretty much any resolution with reforce.Comment
Comment